“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[Proudhuff]

...the different versions of The Golden Rule, which seems all but forgotten in these materialistic times but would surely help the world achieve a better state if brought more to the fore.

Testify.  I won't bore you with my personal belief system ("like arseholes..."), but that same process is how I came by it.

ah, the Golden Rule.... he who has the gold makes the rules. That's it right?

[The Legendary Shark]

Testify. I won't bore you with my personal belief system ("like arseholes..."), but that same process is how I came by it.

The deeper I delve, the more I come to see that beliefs must be based on Truths. Since the widespread adoption of Kant's philosophy (that everything is subjective), the idea of Truth seems to have fallen out of fashion. I once took a friend of mine to task over this. His favourite phrase was, "nothing can be known," to which I answered, "how do you know that?"

Solipsism seems to me to be a very dangerous philosophy which leads to such monstrosities as moral relativism, which can and has been used to justify all manner of atrocities.

Objective Truths do exist, and it is upon these, I think, that personal moral codes must be based.

That's my arsehole at least partially revealed!

[TordelBack]

Objective Truths do exist, and it is upon these, I think, that personal moral codes must be based.

Yup.  I'm all for relativism, I think it's a very useful way to view and understand the world and its people, but I'm also convinced there are truths-with-a-capital-T that are inherent in the universe, and thus in one of its noisier products, humanity, and its morals.  The mistake we make is the level at which we look for objective truths, I think they're a lot deeper, and a lot harder to accept, than we believe: the Golden Rule is the simple exception, but it promises the possibility of other absolutes.  In the meantime we make do with the shallow partial truths we can grasp.

[The Legendary Shark]

I always hoped this thread would redeem itself someday.

But yes, basing morality on Truth seems simple but by no means easy. What, for example, is the truth about Brexit? In my view, all government is based on a lie - the lie that some people have more rights than others. This being so, Brexit must be a lie based on a lie. However, as most people believe in the basic lie this means that it does have effects on me whether I believe in the lie or not. A thorny problem, to say the least.

Damn, the redemption didn't last long, did it?

[The Legendary Shark]

The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion.

[Jim_Campbell]

The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion.

Hmmm. Do I believe 95%+ of the scientists who have studied this issue, or a five-year-old article by this man:

Alex Epstein is the author of the New York Times best-selling book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an expert on energy and industrial policy. Called "most original thinker of the year" by political commentator John McLaughlin, he champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and has changed the way thousands of people think about energy. He has risen to prominence as the nation's leading free-market energy debater, promoting a philosophy that is "anti-pollution but pro-development." He challenges many popularly held ideas about energy, industry, and the environment, including the big picture benefits (and costs) of fossil fuels and nuclear power. He draws on cutting-edge research and original insights to offer an alternate perspective on the energy debate and shares eye-opening thoughts into how fossil fuels and technology will improve the lives of people – safely, cleanly, and effectively – for years to come.

Co-founder of a for-profit think tank peddling this drivel, who cites Ayn Rand as his greatest influence, and has a degree in philosophy.

[Dandontdare]

This is weird - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45953252

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm not quite sure what your argument is in the context of the article I linked to, Jim.

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm not quite sure what your argument is in the context of the article I linked to, Jim.

That it's bullshit, peddled by an unqualified peddler of bullshit.

[JayzusB.Christ]

97 per cent of qualified scientists globally agree that man-made climate change is extremely likely.

They're not ALL in the pockets of Big Wind and Solar.  It hardly needs pointing out (I hope) that there's far more money to be made in denial, not only by fossil fuel companies but by the powerful governments you (and I) hate so much, Sharky.

Most people don't want man-made climate change to be true. But that doesn't mean it isn't.

[The Legendary Shark]

Which parts, Jim?

JBC, back in the day, the big companies like Standard Oil bought off politicians who agreed to do away with electric trams in order to replace them with vehicles powered by petrol and diesel. Those same companies are now moving into wind and solar and funding modern politicians and researchers accordingly.

But that's not the question, there will always be people making money out of problems and there always will be, the question is whether the problem is being over hyped. It seems to me that the problem of climate change must be addressed from all sides. Some solutions do include wind, wave and solar power, some include safer and cleaner ways of extracting and utilising natural fuels, some include the development of new technologies and some include building defences and mitigating systems.

The danger, as I see it, is reducing climate change to a simple model in which mankind is the sole or major driver and ignoring all the other natural factors. In doing this, we allow these entrenched companies to present themselves as champions, the only option to save the planet, for which we are expected to pay through the nose.

As the article says, "...first and foremost, that you need to think for yourself," is the key to addressing the problem in a reasonable and effective way.

[Pyroxian]

As the article says, "...first and foremost, that you need to think for yourself," is the key to addressing the problem in a reasonable and effective way.

Yes, but anyone who goes away and does that, looks at the evidence, and knows a bit of science can see that the temperature increase of the last 100 years or so is obviously a result of industrial pollution.

Also:

[TordelBack]

Heh, I was just about to google for that very cartoon. 

Leaving aside the Pythonesque irony of being commanded to "think for yourself", I'm simply not sure that this is always the best thing to do: sometimes you have to look at the thinking of the people who have spent their whole careers specialising in deeply complex subjects and accept that your amateur noodling can't possibly hold as much weight. 

Under these circumstance, your independent thinking input comes down to assessing which experts are the most credible - and when there's less than 1 dissenter out of every 20 climate scientists, that maverick better be the most brilliant, squeaky-clean, accomplished savant of the age.  Are they?  Otherwise, you need to play the percentages.

Sharky, I've been tangentially involved in Wind Energy in Ireland (I blame the Guinness) over the past half dozen years, and there's a lot of truth in what you say: it's a business, very few involved particularly care about anything other than buying/leasing land and securing planning so that they can build something that will generate revenue - just like every other kind of developer.  It's a wind turbine because that's what the client - the EU, the state, the voter, the consumer - are prepared to permit and pay for, it could just as easily be a landfill or a forest park or a prison.  Sadly this is how it is for everything, no sense of common good, just individual profit for the land owner, the developer, the consultants (hi!), the builder, the operator. 

BUT.

I just recently spent over 3 years working on a new tram system that closely followed the lines of the 1870s system (hydro-electrified from 1901, before that horse drawn) that was dug up in the '50s to facilitate oil-guzzling cars and buses - but the new tram system's elctricity relies on 80% fossil fuels (90% of energy is imported).  That ridiculously shortsighted flip-floppery doesn't mean that the current tram is a bad idea.  And nor does the shift away from fossil fuels to wind, solar and (hopefully) tide, all of which have their disadvantages: we'll still need fossil fuel (to get into space if nothing else), but getting away from complete dependence on this finite resource by whatever means gives us the options to manage it properly.  It also hopefully, frees us from endlessly squabbling over the oil-producing regions of the world, and putting up with this shit because we have no choice.

Big, monstrous costs are coming, due to climate change and the population displacements it is accelerating.  The price of the shift to sustainable energy, efficient batteries, low emission food production, is only the very beginning of the pain.  We need to explore and/or employ all technologies and all options, including a drastic reduction in First World consumption and increase of immigration that nobody is going to like.  But as long as we can sweeten the pill for the supreme selfishness of the monied by making some of these essential changes as profitable for them as the alternatives, we get at least a chance to make progress.  Letting them think there's nothing to be gained by trying, and having them put all their eggs into fortifying swathes of New Zealand or digging bunkers in the Andes will do no-one any good.  Not even them.

Now's not the point at which to throw up our hands, declare every expert a fraud and demand Year Zero: we just don't have the time.

[Professor Bear]

MARS: 2068
Astronaut #1: no, look, I'm just saying there's not much we can do about the temperature of Mars so why bother trying?  There's no consensus on climate change so why try to introduce all this carbon and oxygen?  What's the p

MARS: 2078
Cosmonaut #1: Mind you don't trip on those skeletons while you're turning on that atmosphere generator, comrade.
Cosmonaut #2: Da, comrade Musk.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Which parts, Jim?

JBC, back in the day, the big companies like Standard Oil bought off politicians who agreed to do away with electric trams in order to replace them with vehicles powered by petrol and diesel. Those same companies are now moving into wind and solar and funding modern politicians and researchers accordingly.

You're missing the point.  I'm not talking about politicians, and 'researchers' working for companies are not the same as scientists working for science.  As we have seen with that fucking clown in the White House, world leaders are all too happy to ignore expert opinion. Put it this way; who do you think has more financial clout; oil companies or wind ones?
.
As for thinking for yourself, well, that's all well and good, but how far does that go? 'Well, I've never seen an atom, so they don't exist', perhaps? Or 'evolution can't exist, because I haven't watched it happening'?  Where do you stand on gravity? I can't do the maths to prove it's there, but other people can. Those people are experts, and we're not.  There's a difference between saying 'i have proof that you're wrong' and 'in my opinion, you're wrong'.